Brink Competition Round-up: The Right Rules and More

(wolfnemesis75) #21

[QUOTE=St NickelStew;339454]Well, I congratulate you on a highly constructive post!

I’m watching Brink.TV’s coverage of 6V6 Rounds 1&2 where about the 50 minute mark there is a discussion of Adrenaline. The opponent of Adrenaline as a competitive skill says literally nothing more than “Adrenaline is a ‘cheesy’ ability and shouldn’t be in competition.” He articulates almost nothing else. Oh, it can help the attacking team, when the team is coordinated, to achieve an objective. And /speaking sarcastically/ objectives are achieved so often in Brink, so let’s remove Abilities that actually help coordinated teams from achieving objectives. /I don’t understand./[/QUOTE]

I’d really like to see some more Console Players weigh in on this topic! We could offer a different perspective that may help optimize tournament play. We are the majority. Just my two cents!

(BioSnark) #22

Do you actually have a competitive community? It would seem prudent to have one before claiming a majority.

(wolfnemesis75) #23

Of course we have a competitive community. MLG sponsors console competitions. And so do other organizations. PC is not the only game in town. By majority, I meant largest player base. More players playing the game, means larger pool of potential talent competitively. Just a numbers thing. Whereas PC is a much smaller community overall. Its a console world, brother.* PC is like the Resistance. Console is Security. LOL. (Don’t shoot the messenger:tongue:)

Disclaimer: I played nothing but PC in the late 90s and early 2000s, so I am not hating and half joking.

(nephandys) #24

Yeah because “competitive gaming” is really limited to the PC…I’M SO MAD!!! In case you failed to read my post I wouldn’t even want access to those settings to change them. Also you really make an ass out of yourself when you make assumptions…I do have a $200 console and I also have a gaming PC with 2 6970’s in CF, an I7, 8GB of RAM, etc. Do I need to mention the other older gaming PC I have and the 3 laptops floating around my house? Does that make me better than anyone who only has a console? Nope it sure doesn’t. However, apparently you think it does. My friends play Brink on 360 so I do too. Also the general arrogance of the PC FPS community towards console players is pathetic.

Also it might be worth mentioning that since it appears that there is a larger number of console players playing this game we’re probably the one’s that will keep it afloat long enough for you to get your precious SDK, etc. that you want.

Sorry to be rude, but I don’t know any other way to respond to you. Especially since I clearly indicated in my post that my knowledge of the subject is limited to what I read as well as that I am sure there are valid reasons for the rules they just don’t appear that enticing.

(BioSnark) #25

@wolfnemesis75: Think I heard of one brink console competition a while back. No idea what happened with it. Did it have many teams? Where there more?

(wolfnemesis75) #26

Huh, the game only came out second week of May, and its less than a month later! How many competitions have been on PC so far? One? Back on topic: The main thing is that these rules were set up before the game came out and seemingly with little conversation with players or real battle testing. Not to mention the simple fact that they removed a bunch of core elements from the game to in their mind, make it competitive without giving it a fair shake or chance. (Not surprising since not very many people seemingly gave the game a fair chance to begin with.)

(Apoc) #27

[quote=riptide;339455]scrimming/pugging and a little imagination will give you a fairly accurate picture. Not to mention watching VoDs of said games. Especially if one has competed in another game.

Oh and nice statistics could you tell me where they came from and how they gain any merit?[/quote]

Yup you must have spotted my size 72 font “official” and “Numerically perfect figures” text dotted around my post.

They are just what i feel the figures are like from talking to people in both communities, as 9 out of 10 pub players cant understand why and dislike the restrictions, whereas 9 out of 10 active clans ask for that ruleset and dislike playing without it. FROM MY EXPERIENCE.

Sorry i didnt have time to run an audit, maybe you should?

And no things can go from underpowered to overpowered when an organised team is using something, thats why there are different settings.

(BioSnark) #28

Yes, the original topic might help you find an answer since that’s what it’s about.

(wolfnemesis75) #29

Do any of the competitions take place on the mighty Security Tower? Such an Epic map for Resistance.

(GreasedScotsman) #30

Security Tower would be an automatic full-hold on the PC. In pub play, you’re given over 20 minutes to complete the entire thing on offense. In Stopwatch, the default time limit is 20 minutes, with the expectation or hope that times of 10-15 minutes on average will be set. While a fantastic pub map and fun experience, Sec Tower is not 5v5 competition-ready.

(Shadowcat) #31

I can appreciate what you are attempting to do with these rules, after watching your release tourny, but i feel like its no longer playing Brink.

Maybe you could fix it in a more unorthodox way? 5v6, with defense always a man down? Just make each team have a man sit out when on defense.

Edit: Sure, it might seem a bit boring for the guy who sits out, but considering that i had fun watching a tourny full of people i didn’t even know, being an observer should still be entertaining. I guess there would be issues with the observer potentially acting as a spy, but then again, if you think that’s a problem, then there is the issue that they could be listening to the live podcast.

(wolfnemesis75) #32

That’s the case with pretty much any map with more than three objectives?

(riptide) #33

[QUOTE=Shadowcat;339582]I can appreciate what you are attempting to do with these rules, after watching your release tourny, but i feel like its no longer playing Brink.

Maybe you could fix it in a more unorthodox way? 5v6, with defense always a man down? Just make each team have a man sit out when on defense.

Edit: Sure, it might seem a bit boring for the guy who sits out, but considering that i had fun watching a tourny full of people i didn’t even know, being an observer should still be entertaining. I guess there would be issues with the observer potentially acting as a spy, but then again, if you think that’s a problem, then there is the issue that they could be listening to the live podcast.[/QUOTE]

How often is stopwatch actually played in this “Brink” that you speak of? :slight_smile:

(wolfnemesis75) #34

There has to be a way to use the full assortment of mechanics/classes/abilities and incorporate them into a competitive match.

How about a strict set of Team Classes? 1 Medic, 1 Operative, 1 Soldier, 1 Engineer, 1 Universal. Universal is Team Captain and is the only one who gets to change class during a match everyone else on the team has to remain as his designated class/role. Or Universal (Team Captain) can not complete an objective or use a class specific ability. He becomes essentially a field commander. That way, the match is weighted that way rather than trying to pair down the core game mechanics.

Similar to Basketball. You have positions or in Brink, Classes. So you would have to work as a team and support each objective and the enemy could not spam turrets, mines, etc. Also, Operative becomes a forced position. More innovative gameplay would result in this way.

[QUOTE=Shadowcat;339582]I can appreciate what you are attempting to do with these rules, after watching your release tourny, but i feel like its no longer playing Brink.

Maybe you could fix it in a more unorthodox way? 5v6, with defense always a man down? Just make each team have a man sit out when on defense.

Edit: Sure, it might seem a bit boring for the guy who sits out, but considering that i had fun watching a tourny full of people i didn’t even know, being an observer should still be entertaining. I guess there would be issues with the observer potentially acting as a spy, but then again, if you think that’s a problem, then there is the issue that they could be listening to the live podcast.[/QUOTE]

Also, this may work in Stopwatch for maps with multiple objs like Security Tower.

(Shadowcat) #35

Like i said, i can appreciate the issues that they are having with full-holds. banning half of the skills in the game doesn’t seem like the way to go about fixing it.

The problem is that defense is too strong in the game, so why not give the defense side some handicaps instead, and take away most of the other restrictions. Since it is stopwatch, it doesnt matter how gimped the defense is, it just matters who wins faster. You could even make it so that it was almost impossible for defense to win and it would still be interesting to play and watch.

@wolf:
I’m not sure if I like the idea of forcing team dynamics. A big part of the game is all the different ways you can form a team and still win if you support each other. Watching BrinkTV, it was really interesting seeing team strategy. Some teams take 3 medics, others completely ignore soldier or engineer on defense. Still a better solution than banning half of the skills though, if it would work.

As it is, there is no reason to use Operative when you dont have a hack objective. Comms Hack, Homing Beacon, Cortex Bomb, EMP nade, and Firewall have no use with the rules they use. Hack Turret and control turret are of questionable use in 5v5. That leaves Operatives with Sticky bomb and Caltrops.

Even with no restrictions, a team is unlikely to ever choose the class unless they have to. So claiming that one of the abilities would be too strong on defense is a mute point, they are only going to be used if a team has to hack, and that is an offensive objective. Denying operatives the ability to throw an EMP nade at a turret guarding the hack box is going to cause more holds than it will prevent.

(its al bout security) #36

that is the most ignorant thing i have ever heard. i cant afford a 2000$ dollar computer, i got my xbox for free as i did brink. its taken me 3 months to get 3 months of live (25$) im poor and if i spend that much money itll probably be on another gun.

besides what are you trying to prove that you WASTE money for your nerdgasms??

i suggest you dont turn your nose like that as the poorest people are also the most dangerous

:smiley: like ninjas

(wolfnemesis75) #37

[QUOTE=Shadowcat;339589]Like i said, i can appreciate the issues that they are having with full-holds. banning half of the skills in the game doesn’t seem like the way to go about fixing it.

The problem is that defense is too strong in the game, so why not give the defense side some handicaps instead, and take away most of the other restrictions. Since it is stopwatch, it doesnt matter how gimped the defense is, it just matters who wins faster. You could even make it so that it was almost impossible for defense to win and it would still be interesting to play and watch.

@wolf:
I’m not sure if I like the idea of forcing team dynamics. A big part of the game is all the different ways you can form a team and still win if you support each other. Watching BrinkTV, it was really interesting seeing team strategy. Some teams take 3 medics, others completely ignore soldier or engineer on defense. Still a better solution than banning half of the skills though, if it would work.

As it is, there is no reason to use Operative when you dont have a hack objective. Comms Hack, Homing Beacon, Cortex Bomb, EMP nade, and Firewall have no use with the rules they use. Hack Turret and control turret are of questionable use in 5v5. That leaves Operatives with Sticky bomb and Caltrops.

Even with no restrictions, a team is unlikely to ever choose the class unless they have to. So claiming that one of the abilities would be too strong on defense is a mute point, they are only going to be used if a team has to hack, and that is an offensive objective.[/QUOTE]

Like you said a better solution than removing stuff. By restricting the squad to each class and a Team Captain(Universal) I think it’d be a better trade off than changing the rules of the game. Teams could focus tactics on taking out the other team’s Medic, or Engineer as a real strategy rather than just throwing themselves into the meat of a defense. I think that would be far more strategic and result in less advantage to the defense.

(DeeTwo) #38

Can someone explain again why downed fire and self res needed to be banned as from a spectator POV, they’re awesome.

Or was literally no thought given to people actually watching the game?

(wolfnemesis75) #39

[QUOTE=DeeTwo;339596]Can someone explain again why downed fire and self res needed to be banned as from a spectator POV, they’re awesome.

Or was literally no thought given to people actually watching the game?[/QUOTE]

There is a mindset that these are “Cheap” and take little skill. Similar to Martyrdom.

(riptide) #40

[QUOTE=Shadowcat;339589]Like i said, i can appreciate the issues that they are having with full-holds. banning half of the skills in the game doesn’t seem like the way to go about fixing it.

The problem is that defense is too strong in the game, so why not give the defense side some handicaps instead, and take away most of the other restrictions. Since it is stopwatch, it doesnt matter how gimped the defense is, it just matters who wins faster. You could even make it so that it was almost impossible for defense to win and it would still be interesting to play and watch.

@wolf:
I’m not sure if I like the idea of forcing team dynamics. A big part of the game is all the different ways you can form a team and still win if you support each other. Watching BrinkTV, it was really interesting seeing team strategy. Some teams take 3 medics, others completely ignore soldier or engineer on defense. Still a better solution than banning half of the skills though, if it would work.

As it is, there is no reason to use Operative when you dont have a hack objective. Comms Hack, Homing Beacon, Cortex Bomb, EMP nade, and Firewall have no use with the rules they use. Hack Turret and control turret are of questionable use in 5v5. That leaves Operatives with Sticky bomb and Caltrops.

Even with no restrictions, a team is unlikely to ever choose the class unless they have to. So claiming that one of the abilities would be too strong on defense is a mute point, they are only going to be used if a team has to hack, and that is an offensive objective. Denying operatives the ability to throw an EMP nade at a turret guarding the hack box is going to cause more holds than it will prevent.[/QUOTE]

I think we both agree…that we want to buff offense and gimp defense… but no matter what way you cut it certain abilities will favor defense more than offense. It’s just the nature of things. Buffs are an example.

I feel that the restrictions currently aren’t necessarily there to buff offense or nerf defense and that’s the only thing that should be focused on. Getting it so that the offending team has an advantage of some sort.

For example I feel that EMP is catered more to offense than defense because defense would have to give up an engineer to get it(losing out on buffs(currently) and a mine) and you can still complete the objective while it’s under the effect of EMP. But turrets and mines are disabled by emp… so ya.

But something like adrenaline boost would be easier to utilize on defense to maximum efficiency while on offense it is significantly harder.